It was a foregone conclusion, but…
Spanish voters have approved the EU constitution, by a large margin, but with such low turnout that it’s being described as an embarassment for Zapatero. That didn’t stop the ridiculously high-flown rhetoric, however: “The Spanish people have made history in Europe,” and “We invite you [Europeans] to follow us on the path that we have begun in Spain,” and “Nobody lost. Europe has won and Spain has won.” And everyone’s a winner in the merry old Land of Oz. [link in Spanish - translations mine and probably not perfect]
This was the first of at least nine referenda to be held on the constitution across Europe (other countries are handling approval in the parliament). As I said, this one was a foregone conclusion. I’m anxious to see the Brits get ahold of this baby, though it will be a while before that happens. In the meantime, other skeptical countries such as Poland, Denmark, and, oddly enough even France, will put the constitution to a popular vote. (Good analysis of where individual countries stand here.) While I wouldn’t say I’m cheering for the Constitution’s defeat, I think the odds of its success in all 25 countries is very slim. In theory, one “no” vote kills it, although in practice a “no” vote by a smaller country like Denmark probably wouldn’t. A “no” vote in Britain could prompt British withdrawal from the Union, rather than the defeat of the Constitution. A “no” vote by France (a possibility, but not a terribly likely one in my estimation) would certainly kill the Constitution. Where the EU would go after that would be anyone’s guess.
In any case, back to Spain, I thought this story was cute:
Early voters in Madrid included King Juan Carlos, who cast his ballot at a school.
As he was about to slip his vote into a ballot box, Queen Sofia reminded him he first had to show his national identity card, news agency Efe reported.
A king voting in a national referendum. My, how far the world has come, eh?
No related posts.
Category: Guest Blogging Stand, Our Friends, The Europeans
"While I wouldn’t say I’m cheering for the Constitution’s defeat…"
I'd certainly say I am: it's a complete disaster, and the sooner the end comes for the EU in anything resembling its current form, the best for practically all concerned, save the kleptocratic bureaucracy and second-rate corrupt politicians in Brussels.
Well, there is that.
Don't mistake me, I won't mourn its death either. I definitely have mixed feelings about the EU as an institution. Not being an EU citizen, the matters you mention don't affect me personally, so while bloated bureacracies do make me cringe, it's not my country so it's not my problem. The flip side is that the EU is good for Europe economically, and, if they could ever really get their act together in this arena, it would be good militarily too. Ultimately, while Europe can at times be annoying, I think it's better for the US for it to be strong than fractured.
Thus my ambivalence on the constitution. Had they consulted me, I would have said a constitution at all was a bad idea. But since they didn't, and since the constitution doesn't affect me personally, I can't really cheer for its defeat, for fear that that would tear the EU apart. I suppose the ideal would be for everyone to collectively come to their senses and pitch the constitution in the trash. But since that's unlikely… I'll stick with ambivalence and watch with interest.
"Not being an EU citizen, the matters you mention don’t affect me personally…"
Well, I'm not either. I suppose having spent one semester working for the Tories as John Major's government collapsed around his ears and the next seeing the EU as it really functions up-close-and-personal in Brussels completely turned me off of any ambivalence I might have previously had: it's just not particularly good for anyone except those who live off graft from it.
"The flip side is that the EU is good for Europe economically…"
Yes and no. The single market is good for Europe, but so much of the rest of what the EU produces isn't particularly beneficial economically. Certainly, things like the Common Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy and regulations and directives regarding such absurdities as the shape of bananas are pretty straightforwardly harmful except to some very narrow interests. And monetary union has, from its inception, been a political project with the economic justifications and "benefits" made up afterwards.
"Ultimately, while Europe can at times be annoying, I think it’s better for the US for it to be strong than fractured."
I just don't know: Caesar, Charlemagne, Charles V, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler…the record of "European unity" is a mixed one at best, for its own people as well as for the rest of the world.
I guess that's kind of the point – I think there's a lot more promise for Europe to avoid future Charlemagnes and Napoleons and Hitlers on the current path than if the EU project were to come undone. Though there are certainly ways that the EU could be pursued better, I'd still prefer to see it continue flawed than fall apart.
I'm not all that sure that a "United Europe" is going to be very united. Already, the nations of "Old Europe" have actively antagonized the former Soviet Bloc nations and have pretty much blackmailed Turkey into some level of submission.
Even with a ratified constitution (something I don't think has a 50-50 chance of happening in its present form), the EU is going to be pretty hard-pressed to act as a coherent bloc.
I'd put the odds for ratification at well below 50-50…but maybe that's just my boundless optimism.
But the point you make is a good one, Jimmie: expansion has fundamentally changed the EU, and teh French especially can't stand that it's no longer what they wanted to be, which is why they may try to push ahead with an "inner core" of still faster Ever Closer Union (TM), consisting, one would think, hardly coincidentally, of the Original ECSC Six: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. But I think only the Germans and Belgians would really have any intent of going along with that: the Dutch and Italians realize they actually have allies on at least some issues in "New Europe," as well as with the other big states that joined after the first six, Britain and Spain.
Well, there's a lot of middle ground between perfectly unified and completely disunified (is that a word?). They don't need to achieve total unity to maintain their relatively pacific stance towards one another. While there are definitely negatives to the Union, and while I would definitely be fare more skeptical if I actually lived there, I think on the balance Europe will be better off if the EU continues. That doesn't necessarily mean the constitution needs to pass. My worry is that its failure could precipitate a complete rift in the EU, which I don't find desirable.
It will be interesting to see how it goes. The core countries (France, Benelux, Spain, Italy, Germany) will almost certainly ratify, in my opinion. Scandinavia and Eastern Europe may not all, and it will be interesting to see if core countries decide to cut the renegades loose if they don't. Britain's the most interesting case, and the place where the constitution is most likely to receive a "no" vote – although Blair is putting off the referendum as long as he can so that Britain may not ever have to vote, if the Constitution dies elsewhere first. I do think there's a serious possibility (constitution or no) that Britain will cut itself loose from the EU at some point, and that doesn't worry me since Britain's more removed from Continental affairs. In spite of recent rifts, I think Britain's heart is with us more than it is with Europe.
Well, let's look at the middle ground, then.
Countries like Poland, Italy, Turkey, and Latvia have been very interested in building an economic and mutual defense pact – sort of like NATO with a continental marketplace. They're not so keen on giving up large chunks of their sovereignty to the "core" EU nations like France and Germany.
OTOH, France, especially, has been pushing full-bore to make the EU the "United States of Europe". I'm afraid that if it does, it's going to have a "United States"-style civil war on their hands unless it relents a little. Perhaps this is a case where incrementalism is a far better strategy than grabbing everything in one whole gulp.
The "core states" ahve to realize that some of hte "New Europe" nations haven't been free for very long and they're loathe to give up their hard-fought independence. A benign lord if still a lord and that may be enouhg to slow the EU does appreciably.
All true, except that France isn't quite as pro-Constitution as you think. It could fail there, although I doubt it. The issue of Turkey's admission, which France opposes, has chilled their opinions about the EU a bit.
Well, that's distinguishing French public opinion from the French political elite. It's the latter which has really been the driving force behind the "European Project" from the outset, and populated so much of Brussels with, if not its actual people, then at least its statist, centralizing, condescending and paternalistic dirigiste mindset. Going back to De Gaulle, they're the ones who've seen the whole point of European unity as being the creation of a counterweight to the US: see, e.g., the fact that France, uniquely, is a "political" member of NATO but not of its unified military command structure. The Germans were inclined to passively go along with this, but the more Europe has expanded, the more the French vision for it has been diluted (thank God) by new members who don't think that alienating the US is a good thing, let alone that that should be the strategic aim of this enormous and seeemingly never-ending project.
To generate enthusiasm, the political leadership of the new members in Eastern Europe had to try to sell their constituents the same line of bullshit that Ted Heath sold to Britain in 1973: that this is all about economics, not some grandiose political behemoth come to regulate you into the ground. But "new Europe" has 30 years' more experience to learn from, and they're rightfully and thankfully quite skeptical.
Yeah, you're right, I was referring to the populace, not the leadership. It is an important distinction, but for the purposes of the constitution, it's the populace that's relevant because they're putting it to referendum.
The French establishment may come to regret that, unlike the Germans, their own population has never been indoctrinated to be ashamed of having a national identity that must therefore be submerged within the amorphous concept of being "European." The fact that the EU is no larger France writ large is part of what's starting to turn the French public off to it, at least compared to their previous enthusiasm.
I'd also like to note that this thread marks the first ever use of digiriste at The Shack.
Whenever I think of France in the EU, I remember my one Czech student (who had voted against entering the EU) who asked me if I had ever seen the French map of Europe. When I said "no" he drew me a rough map of Europe (with most of the east noticably small) and placed France on it, but nothing else. Point being, you're right Dave, that the larger the EU gets, and therefore the more the French vote gets diluted, the more skeptical France gets. I've said before in other contexts, I'm not sure if I've ever said it at Potomac Ponderings, but I think that the French view the EU in what I term a "Napoleon-lite" context – i.e., a way to control Europe without firing a shot. Dampened enthusiasm may be largely because it's proving not to be that easy.
Exactly, Nicole. The French "contribution" thus far to the fformation of the EU has been, really, to strongarm various nations into agreeing to the more controlling part of the Constitution. I don't entirely agree with you that the French people aren't buying it because I think recent stories show they are, to one degree or another. The French government has really been selling it as a "everything to win, nothing to lose" situation and they seem to be buying a good part of that. It may not be enough to win the day but I think it'll be very close.
Well, it surprised me when I first started reading it too, but France really is widely considered one of the countries where the constitution might fail to pass referendum. I've read this in plenty of European papers over the past few months, but just for example, from the Prague Post today:
Actually, the article's kind of interesting, because I didn't know (even though I used to live there) that the CR was considered quite as "high risk" from a Europhilic standpoint as it apparently is.